General Discussion

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)

129. That's your fallback? Jeff was off by one? Oh, Vattel....Obama just forced up or down votes

Tue Sep 23, 2014, 02:39 PM

Sep 2014

on the remaining six, and if there was any spine in the farthest Left of the party, they would be organizing calling Congress on the remaining.

As for the rest of us....the supposed authoritarian Right wing and the suck up Center...well...we are kind of fucking exhausted. We've got voter regiatration deadlines in all states, voter protection efforts, ward meetings, and trying to get enough drivers to take people to the polls.

As an added benefit this year, I was just asked this morning what a poll worker should do if someone shows up armed. I shit you not. I just called an LEO friend of mine to find out the law in my usual haunting grounds...the 14thbward in Philly. Google that for shits and giggles.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

139 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hooray! A (Bad) Presidential Nomination Is Dead [View all] n2doc Sep 2014 OP

Kick.... daleanime Sep 2014 #1

Obama=Bush billhicks76 Sep 2014 #95

Now Obama can say, "sorry guys, I tried". And we can get a better nominee. riqster Sep 2014 #2

To whom is he supposed to say "Sorry, guys, I tried"? Jack Rabbit Sep 2014 #4

The two senators from the state in question. riqster Sep 2014 #6

No, as a matter of fact, I haven't Jack Rabbit Sep 2014 #8

This is a Senate Blue Slips problem---there's a whole history here.... msanthrope Sep 2014 #9

thank you for this, msanthrope.. I knew there would be knee jerk reactions. But, I was aware Cha Sep 2014 #90

You are quite welcome, and I thank you for your defense and kind words. msanthrope Sep 2014 #103

Try googling "blue slip". Ideally, before you post. riqster Sep 2014 #11

I mean Jesus, right? nt msanthrope Sep 2014 #13

The Right, sad to say, does not have a monopoly on knee-jerk reactions. riqster Sep 2014 #16

Yeah...you should have seen some of my posts during the DADT wars. That's when I realized that the msanthrope Sep 2014 #20

and it seems you are an apologist for every the President does. Sometimes there are things that the still_one Sep 2014 #34

The sheer lack of knowledge of Civics on DU is the problem. nt BumRushDaShow Sep 2014 #39

Not sure your point, but are you suggesting this was a good nomination by the president? still_one Sep 2014 #46

No. BumRushDaShow Sep 2014 #62

No, msanthrope is not an "apologist" for everything the President does.. yes there are times Cha Sep 2014 #91

Right on track with an insult to the far left - TBF Sep 2014 #52

Maybe it's just "the left". Jakes Progress Sep 2014 #64

+1 NealK Sep 2014 #66

You are talking to an attorney who works voter protection msanthrope Sep 2014 #72

And do you think that you are the only person here who is 'conversant in Senate rules'? sabrina 1 Sep 2014 #106

No, no. woo me with science Sep 2014 #110

Oh, woo....there you are! nt msanthrope Sep 2014 #113

The record of behavior is always important. woo me with science Sep 2014 #116

Oh woo...why not alert on my posts, report me to admin, or msanthrope Sep 2014 #117

What's unclear? woo me with science Sep 2014 #118

You are unclear. This is a partisan, Democratic website, and yet, you msanthrope Sep 2014 #120

Like clockwork! Number23 Sep 2014 #136

The Far Left should be insulted when they carry water for msanthrope Sep 2014 #71

Are you just insulting folks in general or do you have a specific TBF Sep 2014 #82

Mahalo, msanthrope.. I really appreciate your knowledge of this whole Boggs fiasco. :( Cha Sep 2014 #92

You sure do hate those lefties, eh? Jakes Progress Sep 2014 #138

No they dont Egnever Sep 2014 #79

Apparently, they have not. Here's why Obama nominated him, though one can make a good argument flpoljunkie Sep 2014 #24

Thank you Jack Rabbit Sep 2014 #28

Keeping this seat vacant would have kept more vacant--since Leahy worked this msanthrope Sep 2014 #30

Obama shouldn't have been pushing someone who was in favor of the Confederate flag and was Louisiana1976 Sep 2014 #53

Appreciate the explanation. Is this the excuse used when the President put social security still_one Sep 2014 #73

Lord have mercy if Saxby Chambliss wants someone Aerows Sep 2014 #80

The two Senators from Georgia, maybe? MohRokTah Sep 2014 #38

I had an eighth grade civics where I memorized the Constitution Jack Rabbit Sep 2014 #48

It's called "senatorial courtesy". MohRokTah Sep 2014 #51

In any case, it wasn't part of the curriculum in 1966 Jack Rabbit Sep 2014 #54

Yes, Civics probably ignored it back then as a simple procedural nicety. MohRokTah Sep 2014 #60

Do the Democrats use that rule? Or just the obstructionist Repubs? nm rhett o rick Sep 2014 #68

The Democrats used it, though Orrin Hatch suspended it under Bush. eom MohRokTah Sep 2014 #70

Yes, Democrats have used it (nt) Recursion Sep 2014 #89

They've had them since 1789. Why didn't your civics class mention them? Recursion Sep 2014 #76

The two Senators who were blocking all other nominees until this guy got a vote (nt) Recursion Sep 2014 #74

^^^this^^^ progressoid Sep 2014 #107

Secret nth-degree chessmaster's move! Amonester Sep 2014 #5

No--it's a Senate Blue Slips problem, which someone who is conversant in civics is well aware of.... msanthrope Sep 2014 #10

Amazing how many people are so ignorant when it comes to civics, innit? riqster Sep 2014 #14

Ignorance and ODS are a powerful combo. You are welcome. Of course, msanthrope Sep 2014 #15

Away wi' yer facts, laddie! We'll nae be havin' such here! riqster Sep 2014 #17

A um nay laddie! See me username! nt msanthrope Sep 2014 #18

Och aye, me apologies! 'Twas an error on mai paurt. riqster Sep 2014 #23

Not a problem. Being taken for a male is the least offensive thing I'm accused of msanthrope Sep 2014 #31

Thanks. riqster Sep 2014 #36

Ummm... not terribly secret, or nth-dimensional. Recursion Sep 2014 #75

Lamest. Rationalization. Ever. LondonReign2 Sep 2014 #26

Bollocks. The Blue Slip ties his hands, tighter than a filibuster. riqster Sep 2014 #27

So correct me where I'm wrong LondonReign2 Sep 2014 #32

If you would read some of the upthread responses, you'd know the facts. riqster Sep 2014 #40

Why do you think the dems are the winners? Vattel Sep 2014 #134

This message was self-deleted by its author LittleBlue Sep 2014 #94

This message was self-deleted by its author demwing Sep 2014 #97

Yes, he does. What a shame to have a leader that has to be told by his own sabrina 1 Sep 2014 #105

For crying out loud, learn some civics, and read some articles. riqster Sep 2014 #108

"The president believes that Judge Boggs has the necessary qualifications to serve in this role," sabrina 1 Sep 2014 #111

Ah yes, the selective use of "literal interpretation". riqster Sep 2014 #115

is he beholden to right wing fanatics? samsingh Sep 2014 #124

Kicked and recommended! Enthusiast Sep 2014 #3

Why was he nominated in the first place? FlatStanley Sep 2014 #7

Your lesson in civics and Senate Rules for today----Blue Slips..... msanthrope Sep 2014 #12

Thank you for the links. FlatStanley Sep 2014 #41

Why do politically-turned-on people not know about blue slips? Recursion Sep 2014 #77

Bully for you. And they're still anti-democratic. FlatStanley Sep 2014 #83

not over yet Enrique Sep 2014 #19

Nah--let Boggs and Leahy twist. They both deserve it. Leahy has been avoiding this problem for msanthrope Sep 2014 #21

Doesn't matter n2doc Sep 2014 #22

It is really unfortunate that the President appointed such a person still_one Sep 2014 #25

It's amazingly unfortunate you didn't read the thread. nt msanthrope Sep 2014 #29

Did YOU read it? "despite opposition from Democrats, President Obama is standing by his nominee" still_one Sep 2014 #33

I'll say this, he does stand by his republican nominees. Autumn Sep 2014 #35

You would prefer that Boggs' name be withdrawn, OilemFirchen Sep 2014 #42

I said I prefer Obama stand on a republicans head or chest with cleats on his shoes. Autumn Sep 2014 #43

You prefaced that by saying he "does stand by his republican nominees". OilemFirchen Sep 2014 #55

One person snark is another persons snark, he does stand by the republicans that he has nominated Autumn Sep 2014 #56

He should have never been nominated in the first place still_one Sep 2014 #44

Sure....and then we also lose the 7 other nominees who are now on the bench jeff47 Sep 2014 #85

I haven't followed this closely, but I think you are incorrect. Vattel Sep 2014 #98

See my reply 121...it is you who are incorrect, because you have framed this issue msanthrope Sep 2014 #122

are those other six nominees going forward? Vattel Sep 2014 #126

Yes. nt msanthrope Sep 2014 #131

How are the 7 acceptable nominees related to the 1 bad nominee? We do have a majority in the still_one Sep 2014 #86

Because, as I noted in another post, and in the links PROVIDED, msanthrope Sep 2014 #100

was unaware of that, and did not see the post your referred to, which I will look for now. Thanks still_one Sep 2014 #112

There are only six other nominees and three of those are also conservatives. Vattel Sep 2014 #133

Thanks for the perspective still_one Sep 2014 #135

Absolutely!! Boggs and Leahy and Chambliss should twist in the wind msanthrope Sep 2014 #69

For whatever reason, no matter who sponsored this idiot, nice work cutting him off at the pass.... marble falls Sep 2014 #37

I suspect they would have voted for him without hesitation. He represents everything they stand for still_one Sep 2014 #45

If he really was one of the President's serious choices, its even money either way. marble falls Sep 2014 #47

Maybe. Why would you assume it might not have been a serious choice by the President? still_one Sep 2014 #49

How many hold ups are there for judgeships in federal courts? Alot. Maybe he was trying to .... marble falls Sep 2014 #58

I don't buy it with regard to the President. He doesn't play games. Don't misunderstand me, I still_one Sep 2014 #61

Good. k&r n/t Laelth Sep 2014 #50

Now if he'd just dump Arne Duncan.... Ka hrnt Sep 2014 #57

The worst? You sure? That's a mighty high bar. Chan790 Sep 2014 #67

+1000! Fearless Sep 2014 #88

Agreed. Erose999 Sep 2014 #119

LOL! I misinterpreted the meaning of the OP Title, I'm figuring someone actually DIED. 2banon Sep 2014 #59

That he did the nomination in the first place Jakes Progress Sep 2014 #63

Bwah Recursion Sep 2014 #78

Yes, the 7 other nominees he got out of it was a terrible trade. jeff47 Sep 2014 #81

I swear if this thread doesn't beautifully illustrate how ODS affects the brain Number23 Sep 2014 #84

The amount of anger shown for support of the President, coupled with the msanthrope Sep 2014 #114

The amount of knee-jerk faith in support of the president, coupled with the Jakes Progress Sep 2014 #139

He didn't get seven other nominees from it Vattel Sep 2014 #99

Yes....he did. Leahy structured a 7- judge deal. You are incorrectly msanthrope Sep 2014 #121

no jeff was incorrect. Vattel Sep 2014 #125

That's your fallback? Jeff was off by one? Oh, Vattel....Obama just forced up or down votes msanthrope Sep 2014 #129

fall back? i haven't said anything incorrect yet Vattel Sep 2014 #132

Now if we could just get rid of that fuck Wheeler ...another Obama fuck up. L0oniX Sep 2014 #65

We do have to keep an eye on the White House. And occasionally fight back. blkmusclmachine Sep 2014 #87

Why would we blame the White House for Senate Rules? nt msanthrope Sep 2014 #101

I love threads like these Egnever Sep 2014 #93

ODS must be stopped in our lifetime. nt msanthrope Sep 2014 #102

Good to hear the nomination is not going through davidpdx Sep 2014 #96

The White House says it's not giving up. Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #104

See the response to Post # 19. nt BumRushDaShow Sep 2014 #109

That's their propagative to do so davidpdx Sep 2014 #137

why would Obama even nominate such a bad candidate ? samsingh Sep 2014 #123

Why does he like fossil fuel so much and fracking? TheNutcracker Sep 2014 #127

According to the WH, Obama thinks he is a good candidate. Vattel Sep 2014 #128

Why would you post without reading the thread??? nt msanthrope Sep 2014 #130